Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36650539›Full record

Trial reportHealth and quality of life outcomes2023

Impacts of the preceding cancer-specific health-related quality of life instruments on the responses to the subsequent EQ-5D-5L.

Shoki Izumi, Yasuhiro Hagiwara, Yutaka Matsuyama, Takeru Shiroiwa, Naruto Taira, Takuya Kawahara, Keiko Konomura, Shinichi Noto, Takashi Fukuda, Kojiro Shimozuma

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pre-treatment quality of life and survival outcomes in lung cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Shoki IzumiBiostatistics and Bioinformatics Course, Graduate School of Interdisciplinary Information Studies, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Yasuhiro HagiwaraDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan. hagiwara@epistat.m.u-tokyo.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3792-5368
Yutaka MatsuyamaDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan.
Takeru ShiroiwaCenter for Outcomes Research and Economic Evaluation for Health, National Institute of Public Health, Wako, Japan.
Naruto TairaDepartment of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Okayama University Hospital, Okayama, Japan.
Takuya KawaharaClinical Research Promotion Center, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Keiko KonomuraCenter for Outcomes Research and Economic Evaluation for Health, National Institute of Public Health, Wako, Japan.
Shinichi NotoCenter for Health Economics and QOL Research, Niigata University of Health and Welfare, Niigata, Japan.
Takashi FukudaCenter for Outcomes Research and Economic Evaluation for Health, National Institute of Public Health, Wako, Japan.
Kojiro ShimozumaDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, College of Life Sciences, Ritsumeikan University, Kusatsu, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn clinical studies, the EQ-5D-5L is often employed with disease-specific health-related quality of life instruments. The questions in the former are more general than the latter; however, it is known that responses to general questions can be influenced by preceding specific questions. Thus, the responses to the EQ-5D-5L have the possibility of being influenced by the preceding disease-specific health-related quality of life instruments. This may lead to bias in the cost-effectiveness analysis results. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the impact of the preceding cancer-specific health-related quality of life instruments on the EQ-5D-5L responses.

methodsWe prepared questionnaire booklets containing the EQ-5D-5L, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30, and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General with different orders. Using a quasi-randomized design, they were distributed to the patients undergoing drug therapy for advanced cancer, who were classified into three groups: Groups 1, 2, and 3 (the EQ-5D-5L placed first, second, and last, respectively). We compared the EQ-5D-5L index and the missingness of EQ-5D-5L among the groups.

resultsThe mean EQ-5D-5L index was 0.796, 0.760, and 0.789 for groups 1 (n = 300), 2 (n = 306), and 3 (n = 331), respectively. The difference between Groups 2 and 1 was - 0.036 (95% CI - 0.065 to - 0.007; p = 0.015). The proportion of patients with an incomplete EQ-5D-5L was 0.11, 0.11, and 0.05 for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The difference of the proportions between group 3 and 1 and between 3 and 2 was - 0.06 (95% CI - 0.10 to - 0.02; p = 0.003) and - 0.06 (95% CI - 0.10 to - 0.02; p = 0.003), respectively.

conclusionsAlthough the EQ-5D-5L index differed according to the instrument orders, the difference size would not be considerably larger than the minimally important difference. The patients tended to complete the EQ-5D-5L when they were placed at the end of the questionnaire.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesHumansReproducibility of ResultsCost-effectiveness analysisEORTC QLQ-C30EQ-5D-5LFACT-GHealth-related quality of lifeOrder effect

Identifiers

PMID36650539
PMCPMC9843919

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.